<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Why, it&#8217;s Schrödinger&#8217;s cat in the flesh	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/</link>
	<description>A blog about political change, among other things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:45:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: HC68		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2737109</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HC68]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 18:45:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2737109</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;But it cannot simultaneously spin in both directions because that would violate the fundamental operative laws that govern the universe. So if two observers simultaneously viewed the particle, it could not simultaneously spin in both directions. Regardless of how “strange” their behavior, quantum particles operate within the physical universe.&quot;

Unfortunately, that physical universe does indeed permit particles to spin in both directions at once, or at least to behave exactly as if they are doing so.

&quot;Schrödinger and Einstein were brilliant mathematicians. And at least in this case, entirely lacking in common sense. Mathematicians ideate, physicists “worth their ‘salt&#039;” conduct real world tests that strive to confirm whether ‘the idea’* has any actual validity. *the mathematical hypothesis/theory&quot;

--Geoffrey Britain

Einstein _hated_ quantum mechanics for many of the reasons you reject it.  Unfortunately, _every single experimental test_ that has been peformed in the years since affirms QM.  Over and over and over, over a period of decades.

Rememer, &#039;common sense&#039; once said that &#039;a second is a second is a second&#039;, and of course it was impossible for someone travelling at .99c to experience a year while seven years or so passed on Earth...except that that&#039;s exactly what actually does happen.  And both the 1 year and 7 year perceptions are equally real.

QM is crazy.  It violates our intuitions about what is real and what is not.  It seems, in everyday terms, _impossible_.  But it _works_.  It&#039;s the basis of most of our advanced electronics and communications technology.  It&#039;s part of why atom bombs detonate, and just ask the people of Hiroshima if that is real.

The universe just doesn&#039;t operate the way our brains are wired to want it to.

&quot;If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound, whether or not you’re there to hear it.&quot; -- IrishOtter49

No, it doesn&#039;t.  It makes the atoms of the air and ground vibrate, yes, but _sound_ is a perception the brain produces in reaction to the ear being impacted by those vibrations.  Some people with brain disorders perceive vibrations in the ear as other things than sound.

It&#039;s like color.  The light impinging on our eyes is different physical frequencies,  yes, but _color_ is a perception of those frequencies in the brain.  For people with red/green color blindness, those two frequency bands are the same color.  For people with total color blindess (rare), color just doesn&#039;t exist.  The frequency differences are real, and a color-blind person can measure them with instruments or calculate their nature, but for him or her, color is not a thing.  For some people, indigo is real, for others, it&#039;s just purple or blue.  The frequency differences are real, the colors are perceptual and conditional.

Which isn&#039;t just nit-picking.  We experience the world through our senses and it&#039;s easy to assume that what we perceive is &#039;the&#039; reality, which is only conditionally true.  Often it makes no practical difference, but sometimes it matters a lot.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But it cannot simultaneously spin in both directions because that would violate the fundamental operative laws that govern the universe. So if two observers simultaneously viewed the particle, it could not simultaneously spin in both directions. Regardless of how “strange” their behavior, quantum particles operate within the physical universe.&#8221;</p>
<p>Unfortunately, that physical universe does indeed permit particles to spin in both directions at once, or at least to behave exactly as if they are doing so.</p>
<p>&#8220;Schrödinger and Einstein were brilliant mathematicians. And at least in this case, entirely lacking in common sense. Mathematicians ideate, physicists “worth their ‘salt&#8217;” conduct real world tests that strive to confirm whether ‘the idea’* has any actual validity. *the mathematical hypothesis/theory&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8211;Geoffrey Britain</p>
<p>Einstein _hated_ quantum mechanics for many of the reasons you reject it.  Unfortunately, _every single experimental test_ that has been peformed in the years since affirms QM.  Over and over and over, over a period of decades.</p>
<p>Rememer, &#8216;common sense&#8217; once said that &#8216;a second is a second is a second&#8217;, and of course it was impossible for someone travelling at .99c to experience a year while seven years or so passed on Earth&#8230;except that that&#8217;s exactly what actually does happen.  And both the 1 year and 7 year perceptions are equally real.</p>
<p>QM is crazy.  It violates our intuitions about what is real and what is not.  It seems, in everyday terms, _impossible_.  But it _works_.  It&#8217;s the basis of most of our advanced electronics and communications technology.  It&#8217;s part of why atom bombs detonate, and just ask the people of Hiroshima if that is real.</p>
<p>The universe just doesn&#8217;t operate the way our brains are wired to want it to.</p>
<p>&#8220;If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound, whether or not you’re there to hear it.&#8221; &#8212; IrishOtter49</p>
<p>No, it doesn&#8217;t.  It makes the atoms of the air and ground vibrate, yes, but _sound_ is a perception the brain produces in reaction to the ear being impacted by those vibrations.  Some people with brain disorders perceive vibrations in the ear as other things than sound.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s like color.  The light impinging on our eyes is different physical frequencies,  yes, but _color_ is a perception of those frequencies in the brain.  For people with red/green color blindness, those two frequency bands are the same color.  For people with total color blindess (rare), color just doesn&#8217;t exist.  The frequency differences are real, and a color-blind person can measure them with instruments or calculate their nature, but for him or her, color is not a thing.  For some people, indigo is real, for others, it&#8217;s just purple or blue.  The frequency differences are real, the colors are perceptual and conditional.</p>
<p>Which isn&#8217;t just nit-picking.  We experience the world through our senses and it&#8217;s easy to assume that what we perceive is &#8216;the&#8217; reality, which is only conditionally true.  Often it makes no practical difference, but sometimes it matters a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: miguel+cervantes		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736827</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[miguel+cervantes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:29:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736827</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[thats a little too clever by half imho,]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thats a little too clever by half imho,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: om		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736825</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[om]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736825</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[But if the tree falls on 
the Cat with a Hat 
will Dr. Suess say splat?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But if the tree falls on<br />
the Cat with a Hat<br />
will Dr. Suess say splat?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: IrishOtter49		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736823</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[IrishOtter49]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 22:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736823</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound, whether or not you&#039;re there to hear it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound, whether or not you&#8217;re there to hear it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Oligonicella		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736799</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Oligonicella]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736799</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The only wave that collapses is the wave representing your knowledge, not the physical reality.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The only wave that collapses is the wave representing your knowledge, not the physical reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: TommyJay		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736778</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[TommyJay]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736778</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[neo&#039;s Forbes article in the comments makes this following point, if you read it carefully.  But Schrodinger&#039;s original point in the cat thought experiment, is that it seems absurd.  He didn&#039;t like the theory that it incorporates and was trying to say, &quot;See, the theory doesn&#039;t make any sense.&quot;  It was intended to be a demonstration of fallacy.

As Wikipedia puts it:
&lt;i&gt;According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-live cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics, and thus he was employing reductio ad absurdum.&lt;/i&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>neo&#8217;s Forbes article in the comments makes this following point, if you read it carefully.  But Schrodinger&#8217;s original point in the cat thought experiment, is that it seems absurd.  He didn&#8217;t like the theory that it incorporates and was trying to say, &#8220;See, the theory doesn&#8217;t make any sense.&#8221;  It was intended to be a demonstration of fallacy.</p>
<p>As Wikipedia puts it:<br />
<i>According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead until the state has been observed. Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-live cats as a serious possibility; on the contrary, he intended the example to illustrate the absurdity of the existing view of quantum mechanics, and thus he was employing reductio ad absurdum.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Alan+Colbo		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736769</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan+Colbo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736769</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[What if the Double-Slit experiment really shows that we are wrong about photons? Do we know for certain that single photons can&#039;t be split?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What if the Double-Slit experiment really shows that we are wrong about photons? Do we know for certain that single photons can&#8217;t be split?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ray+Van+Dune		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736765</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ray+Van+Dune]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:37:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736765</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A certain famous physicist retells the story of Schroedinger&#039;s Cat with the cat being put to sleep by sedative gas rather than killed, because he abhors talking about killing animals.

I have a theory about this. My theory is that this man&#039;s wife is very, very, good in bed!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A certain famous physicist retells the story of Schroedinger&#8217;s Cat with the cat being put to sleep by sedative gas rather than killed, because he abhors talking about killing animals.</p>
<p>I have a theory about this. My theory is that this man&#8217;s wife is very, very, good in bed!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Barry Meislin		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736763</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Barry Meislin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736763</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[OK, OK, but what about Heisenberg&#039;s Cat?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, OK, but what about Heisenberg&#8217;s Cat?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Another+Mike		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2024/04/27/why-its-schrodingers-cat-in-the-flesh/#comment-2736759</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Another+Mike]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2024 14:34:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=134041#comment-2736759</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[So Huxley (@8:32pm) tells us that we can have our cake and sit on it too.....   

Beep, beep.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So Huxley (@8:32pm) tells us that we can have our cake and sit on it too&#8230;..   </p>
<p>Beep, beep.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
